• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

War on drugs.

Pick one!

  • Continue drug war

    Votes: 10 20.0%
  • Legalize marijuana

    Votes: 25 50.0%
  • Legalize it all!

    Votes: 20 40.0%

  • Total voters
    50
Are you suggesting that personal experiences can't be factual?

No, I wanted to point out that personal experiences typically aren't a good representation of all people. Consider the population of the US and then consider how many people you know in those situations. I've had personal experiences with alcoholics. I think I can say I've seen the worst of the worst in alcoholism. People who were once contributing members of society rendered unable to function. I've also seen many potheads unaffected by pot in how successful they are, how well they function. Regardless, our personal experiences are hardly relevant. Now, lets look at some facts. I noticed you live in the Alaska. It must be beautiful up there. I'm a little jealous. :] I probably don't have to tell you alcohol causes quite a lot of problems up there. It's evident in the amount of dry villages. In fact, it's causing more problems up there than any other illegal drug. Here's some links backing me up. The following link is about alcohol and alaska. Honestly, this surprised me. Alcohol more profitable than cocaine?
http://www.law.state.ak.us/pdf/admin/ARJLEC-alcohol-issues-and-legislation-071306.pdf
This next link is about alcohol and the US as a whole. 40% of all violent crimes? Wow.
Crime and Alcohol
 
Last edited:

That still isn't home-grown tobacco. That's still retail branded product. I was addressing your argument that people would still buy home-grown. Even when the taxes are that high, people still won't buy unbranded tobacco. What you are proving is only that state taxes are dangerously high in some markets, not that people would rather buy illictly produced tobacco. They would end up having to pay more for it than for the legitimate retail tobacco.

Though I do agree that those states should address the problems with their tax code. That much I'll definitely agree with.

There were too many links associated with illegal moonshine so here is the link to the Google search, there you can take your pick. there you will find links reporting government still shutting down illegal stills and making arrests.
https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGHP_enUS469US469&q=moonshine+alive+and+well

Did you read any of the links?

Virginia law says you must have a license to operate a distillery. However, the number of illegal still investigations and seizures in Virginia is on the rise - from eight in 2008 to 23 in 2012.

[ . . . ]

Those who secretly make moonshine say it should be legal to fill up a Mason jar for the family. They say it's just about Uncle Sam wanting his fair share in taxes.

Moonshine: Laws, Liquor and Lawmen - NBC29 WVIR Charlottesville, VA News, Sports and Weather

23 busts for mason jar moonshine, and you call that enough to signify a meangingful black market?

Moonshine is Alive and Well in Marshall County | WKMS

Story about legal, licensed and taxed moonshine.

Moonshiners Alive and Well In This Area |

Local authorities said cases involving moonshine stills have become increasingly rare over the past decade.

According to Scott County Commonwealth�s Attorney Marcus McClung, the working still confiscated Tuesday�s was only the second one that has been found by authorities during his three terms in office.

Moonshining alive and well at Institution

Moonshine production in a prison.

Gadsden Times - Google News Archive Search

Article from 1990.

There isn't a meaningful market for illegal moonshine. There hasn't been since alcohol was legalized. The proliferation of murderous gangs and crime surrounding black-market alcohol disappeared as soon as it was legalized again. If we were to outlaw it again, to somehow strike out at the very few illegal producers there are, all that would do is replace every existing, regulated, taxed, inspected liquor store with a new gang dealing black-market moonshine.

If we legalized marijuana you could expect the same. Some home-grown personal use stuff, a small black market for illegally produced reefer, but mostly all of it being incorporated into the white-market economy, freeing up law enforcement and prison cells for more serious crimes, raising tax revenue, employing honest Americans, and keeping the money in the US economy.
 
That still isn't home-grown tobacco. That's still retail branded product. I was addressing your argument that people would still buy home-grown. Even when the taxes are that high, people still won't buy unbranded tobacco. What you are proving is only that state taxes are dangerously high in some markets, not that people would rather buy illictly produced tobacco. They would end up having to pay more for it than for the legitimate retail tobacco.

Though I do agree that those states should address the problems with their tax code. That much I'll definitely agree with.



Did you read any of the links?



Moonshine: Laws, Liquor and Lawmen - NBC29 WVIR Charlottesville, VA News, Sports and Weather

23 busts for mason jar moonshine, and you call that enough to signify a meangingful black market?

Moonshine is Alive and Well in Marshall County | WKMS

Story about legal, licensed and taxed moonshine.

Moonshiners Alive and Well In This Area |



Moonshining alive and well at Institution

Moonshine production in a prison.

Gadsden Times - Google News Archive Search

Article from 1990.

There isn't a meaningful market for illegal moonshine. There hasn't been since alcohol was legalized. The proliferation of murderous gangs and crime surrounding black-market alcohol disappeared as soon as it was legalized again. If we were to outlaw it again, to somehow strike out at the very few illegal producers there are, all that would do is replace every existing, regulated, taxed, inspected liquor store with a new gang dealing black-market moonshine.

If we legalized marijuana you could expect the same. Some home-grown personal use stuff, a small black market for illegally produced reefer, but mostly all of it being incorporated into the white-market economy, freeing up law enforcement and prison cells for more serious crimes, raising tax revenue, employing honest Americans, and keeping the money in the US economy.

I never said Black Market in Cigarettes involved growing your own tobacco. You assumed that on your own. The purpose in using cigarettes as an example is to show even though a substance is made legal and it collects a lot of taxes it still has the real potential to increase criminal activity. If the black market for cigarettes exists, only an idiot would deny the real potential for a black market on marijuana or any drug.

People all across this country are getting arrested for making moonshine. My first link did have some examples as proof the practice still exists. Unfortunately I posted the first link twice.

Here is a link proving folks all over are getting arrested for moonshine stills operations.

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGHP_enUS469US469&q=moonshine+alive+and+well#fp=d376bad89d5753b2&q=arrests+in+moonshine+stills

The government federal and state don't take kindly of someone taking upon themselves to produce and sell a product that they rely on for much revenue. And only an idiot would think that growing your own marijuana, poppies whatever to produce your own stash would be permitted...... one French fry short a whole Happy Meal.
 
Last edited:
Child, calm yourself lest in your over emotive state you do yourself an injury.
I have grandchildren.
But I am glad to know that you've reached a point where you have nothing intelligent to say and have begun to base your argument on nothing more than petty insults.

First, there is no hospital here. There is none for hundreds of miles, and no road to reach one anyway.
Oh I see, so you are an EMT in the wilderness without roads. I can clearly see that your experience in such matters must be vast.

Second, you assume that people who get their bills paid by others don't brag about it and then whine publicly and frequently that they should receive more of the fruits of other people's labors. The nature of life in a small remote village is most instructive.

Third, heavy pot smokers are heavy pot smokers largely because they are lazy. Building a real life with real accomplishments and producing actual value to one's fellows is a bother that can be washed a way in resinous smoke. Unless you like so many Leftists believe that things occur for no reason?

That is just ridiculous speculation based from ignorance and your extremely limited experiences and ideas. Some of the most productive people I have known smoke pot, as well as some of the least.
 
Did it ever cross your mind how profitable it would be to the federal government and big business to decriminalize all drugs while addicting them to the substances knowing that they would certainly be return customers?

Not half as profitable in terms of either money or power as the war on drugs has become.
 
As always, it is fascinating to observe the leftist capacity to dismiss the experiences of others.

I'm not concerned with addiction rates, nor withdrawal issues just now. I'm concerned with the notion or thoughtless concept that people whom we're expected to support and nurture at the expense of the Productive should be given further license to exist by choice as mentally defective parasites.

Where do you get this kind of stuff from?
You seem to have this false impression that people that prefer marijuana over alcohol are lazy or unproductive.
This notion is totally absurd and you have been watching too much television.

You might also consider the nature of those who sell legally or illegally chemical happiness, and their glorious contributions to society and the employment of dieners.

Right, and that is one of the strongest arguments for legalization.
The drug dealers are indeed leaches in society. People who do not pay taxes, yet use capitalism to charge as much as the market will allow.
Legalization ends this problem.
 
Care to post any links to your claims? I'm finding a mixed bag including what NPR reported a year and a half ago. Certainly not a bastion of right winged agenda.

Not really. The harm reduction model is still the most practical and fair. Punishing people for drug use makes no sense. Anyone should have the sovereign right to alter their consciousnes - just like they do with coffee and alcohol - without suffering punishment by the state.

Instead of me proving to you that the HR model is effective, I would ask you to prove to me how locking people away for simple possession and treating addicts like monsters is beneficial to society? What good as Reagan's war on drugs done for this country?

[/quote]

This NPR article fails to account for the decline in the economy, leading to major unemployment, which leads to more drug use.
 
I never said Black Market in Cigarettes involved growing your own tobacco. You assumed that on your own. The purpose in using cigarettes as an example is to show even though a substance is made legal and it collects a lot of taxes it still has the real potential to increase criminal activity.

Yes, small amounts, but not anywhere near as much as there is in a market that exists entirely as a criminal enterprise.

People all across this country are getting arrested for making moonshine. My first link did have some examples as proof the practice still exists. [/URL]

Not in any way even remotely as bad as it did during prohibition. Yes, there are still minor operations squeeking by, but it's not a vast and deadly gangland economy like it was during prohibition. You seem to be saying if we can't get rid of illegal markets 100%, then we should have a 100% illegal market. That doesn't make any sense.


The government federal and state don't take kindly of someone taking upon themselves to produce and sell a product that they rely on for much revenue. And only an idiot would think that growing your own marijuana, poppies whatever to produce your own stash would be permitted...... one French fry short a whole Happy Meal.

I don't think it would be permitted, I think that it would happen, and it would be negligible. That's what I said. Also, it still may well be permitted. After all, you're still allowed to brew your own beer and press your own wine. I knew a guy once, terrible hopeless alcoholic, who only drank honey-meade he made himself because it was about $6 for like 5 or 6 gallons of it. Perfectly legal.

The point is, the black market for reefer would be reduced to negligible levels as soon as legalization happened. That there would still be small time operations doesn't in any way negate the value of elimitaing what would probable be over 99% of the black market. That's on top of the other benefits.
 
Not really. The harm reduction model is still the most practical and fair. Punishing people for drug use makes no sense. Anyone should have the sovereign right to alter their consciousnes - just like they do with coffee and alcohol - without suffering punishment by the state.

Instead of me proving to you that the HR model is effective, I would ask you to prove to me how locking people away for simple possession and treating addicts like monsters is beneficial to society? What good as Reagan's war on drugs done for this country?
This NPR article fails to account for the decline in the economy, leading to major unemployment, which leads to more drug use.[/


Last I checked, at least half of the states have passed some form of decriminalization on the possession of marijuana. That is the issue correct? Certainly a wide selection of states for people to move if it is that important to them. Who is treating addicts like monsters? Not me. However, some drugs do have a history of making people violent. I have nothing but pity for addicts for because of their addiction they are not a free person. I've watched them destroy their health, lose their wealth, and create a living hell for their families and loved ones. Because of what I've observed personally no doubt has a role in why I am strongly against the legalization.
 
Last I checked, at least half of the states have passed some form of decriminalization on the possession of marijuana. That is the issue correct? Certainly a wide selection of states for people to move if it is that important to them. Who is treating addicts like monsters? Not me. However, some drugs do have a history of making people violent. I have nothing but pity for addicts for because of their addiction they are not a free person. I've watched them destroy their health, lose their wealth, and create a living hell for their families and loved ones. Because of what I've observed personally no doubt has a role in why I am strongly against the legalization.

Colorado and Washington have legalized recreational use of pot. Several states have legalized medical marijuana. It still remains illegal at the federal level, however.
Real legalization would see it grown commercially on private farmland, just like everything from corn to peanuts is grown on private farmland. The illegal operations on public land we see today would not be profitable, and so would stop.
As long as the government didn't impose truly draconian taxes and regulations, there is no way that the illegal growers could possibly compete with the legitimate ones. Cartels and the guy on the street corner would be out of business. Moreover, the licensed dealers would not jeopardize their license by selling to minors, or, if they did, they'd soon be out of business. There would be more control than there is now.

So, unless you enjoy being a part of that 5% of the world population that is supporting 25% of the prisoners, you really need to look closely at legalization.
 
Yes, small amounts, but not anywhere near as much as there is in a market that exists entirely as a criminal enterprise.



Not in any way even remotely as bad as it did during prohibition. Yes, there are still minor operations squeeking by, but it's not a vast and deadly gangland economy like it was during prohibition. You seem to be saying if we can't get rid of illegal markets 100%, then we should have a 100% illegal market. That doesn't make any sense.




I don't think it would be permitted, I think that it would happen, and it would be negligible. That's what I said. Also, it still may well be permitted. After all, you're still allowed to brew your own beer and press your own wine. I knew a guy once, terrible hopeless alcoholic, who only drank honey-meade he made himself because it was about $6 for like 5 or 6 gallons of it. Perfectly legal.

The point is, the black market for reefer would be reduced to negligible levels as soon as legalization happened. That there would still be small time operations doesn't in any way negate the value of elimitaing what would probable be over 99% of the black market. That's on top of the other benefits.

Your blowing off the black market on cigarettes as being minor is baloney. Using the example of moonshine was to show you once something becomes legal and is taxed, there still remains an illegal market and when it is discovered by law enforcement it becomes a felony. People don't like being raped over taxes so there is more than a few purchasing their whiskey free of taxation. And the one producing it is doing so free of fees for licences and a book full of government regulations (another word for hidden taxes). So though it isn't as bad as prohibition, it's still a lucrative business for many of tax free dollars.

I keep reading a lot about how legalizing drugs will end the black market because people will be able to buy their drugs cheaper regulated by the government and taxed of course. An end to cartels. Yeah the cartels would loose a good part of their business from those who are of legal age (21 ?) that will be able to purchase them but what makes you think it will stop them from going after the kids who can't buy them legally?

And then there is something from our history when opiates and heroin were legal up to the first part of the 20th century I find relevant. When government started taxing the drugs and tariffs on the drugs increased, the black market thrived mainly through China smuggling in the drugs to avoid the high tariffs and was able to offer them on the street for less than the government allowed.

And the most disingenuous argument given in this thread are those who claim there will be no huge increase in addicts....... even my libertarian friends acknowledge that one. Because there are two reasons why we don't have more of our population using drugs for recreation. 1. they can't afford them. 2. because they are illegal. If you take away both those barriers we as a nation would see a great increase in drug addiction which comes with it a huge price tag for social welfare services and law enforcement for a number of reasons.
 
Last edited:
I support the legalization of everything, as long as people understand what that means.

Use would be criminalized in the same way as alcohol (public use would be prohibited, as well as operation of a vehicle). If a private employer doesn't want it and fires someone for any drug, it'd be legal. If your insurance premiums increase because of use, it'd be okay.

Basically, legalize it all and impart knowledge on the populace as to the ramifications of its use. If they accept that...knock yourselves out.
 
Colorado and Washington have legalized recreational use of pot. Several states have legalized medical marijuana. It still remains illegal at the federal level, however.
Real legalization would see it grown commercially on private farmland, just like everything from corn to peanuts is grown on private farmland. The illegal operations on public land we see today would not be profitable, and so would stop.
As long as the government didn't impose truly draconian taxes and regulations, there is no way that the illegal growers could possibly compete with the legitimate ones. Cartels and the guy on the street corner would be out of business. Moreover, the licensed dealers would not jeopardize their license by selling to minors, or, if they did, they'd soon be out of business. There would be more control than there is now.

So, unless you enjoy being a part of that 5% of the world population that is supporting 25% of the prisoners, you really need to look closely at legalization.

Oh that all sounds all well and good having the weed growing next to the corn and soy beans on private land and corporate farms. Of course they would have to be licenced, and most likely have a limit on the amount they could grow. But what is stopping someone who is not licensed to start his own business? California since they passed their marijuana laws have a real problem with illegal growers. Colorado is reporting the same What the government will give you for 40 bucks, the illegal grower then will offer it at a lower price after all, he doesn't have to hassle with all the rules and regulations and he has a nice clientele in students who are either to young to purchase it or can't afford it.

thanks but no thanks.
 
. . .
Right, and that is one of the strongest arguments for legalization.
The drug dealers are indeed leaches in society. People who do not pay taxes, yet use capitalism to charge as much as the market will allow.
Legalization ends this problem.

That is one of the most foolish arguments out there. It's like the people who imagine that the Mexican drug cartels will become law abiding citizens if recreational narcotics are legalized.

Such people are professional criminals first and foremost, and will always seek illicit activities.
 
I have grandchildren.
But I am glad to know that you've reached a point where you have nothing intelligent to say and have begun to base your argument on nothing more than petty insults.
Then I recommend that you provide your progeny with a good example of mature thinking. Children can be of any age, I have found. It is terribly sad to find them in adult bodies.
Oh I see, so you are an EMT in the wilderness without roads. I can clearly see that your experience in such matters must be vast.
I have also been one in a major urban setting, as well as the Air Force. My experience is rather extensive. Embracing it is one of the several aspects of my nature that gives rise to a superior intellect, and the production of more valuable and valid insights.

That is just ridiculous speculation based from ignorance and your extremely limited experiences and ideas. Some of the most productive people I have known smoke pot, as well as some of the least.
And some of the most produictive people I've known and in the historical record have been profound alcoholics. Your point?
 
No, I wanted to point out that personal experiences typically aren't a good representation of all people. Consider the population of the US and then consider how many people you know in those situations. I've had personal experiences with alcoholics. I think I can say I've seen the worst of the worst in alcoholism. People who were once contributing members of society rendered unable to function. I've also seen many potheads unaffected by pot in how successful they are, how well they function. Regardless, our personal experiences are hardly relevant. Now, lets look at some facts. I noticed you live in the Alaska. It must be beautiful up there. I'm a little jealous. :] I probably don't have to tell you alcohol causes quite a lot of problems up there. It's evident in the amount of dry villages. In fact, it's causing more problems up there than any other illegal drug. Here's some links backing me up. The following link is about alcohol and alaska. Honestly, this surprised me. Alcohol more profitable than cocaine?
http://www.law.state.ak.us/pdf/admin/ARJLEC-alcohol-issues-and-legislation-071306.pdf
This next link is about alcohol and the US as a whole. 40% of all violent crimes? Wow.
Crime and Alcohol
Have I said that heavy marijuana use contributes significantly to violent crime. No. I have correctly pointed out that it contributes to human parasitism and a diminished mental capacity in the population so self-afflicted, and that mental deficiency is inimical to a republican form of government. (if is however, vital and indispensable to the Modern Left for such period and the trappings of a republican form of government endure.)
 
Last I checked, at least half of the states have passed some form of decriminalization on the possession of marijuana. That is the issue correct? Certainly a wide selection of states for people to move if it is that important to them.

Are you referring to the states of Portugal?

In Lisbon you can possess any small amount of drug. You call it marijuana but its real name is cannabis -- cannabis is decriminalized in all the states. In the capital no one will do anything if you are smoking a joint in the streets. Of course, there is cultural politeness, so people will have discretion, but from a legal standpoint they can't be tossed in jail and have their lives ruined over it.

Who is treating addicts like monsters?

Any system that criminalizes small possession is not only completely inefficient, it is also ethically vile. In many U.S. states, small possession of opiates or heroin is a felony charge. That's just ridiculous.

The reason why it treats addicts like monsters is because it's addicts who are in the most risky position to get caught. They have medical need of the substance so will play russian roulette with the law more readily. Combined with this, the medical system stigmatizes addicts because simply admitting you are high to most medical personnel will get you the third degree. De-couple the law from the medicine, and harm reduction will increase greatly. Then there will be less outbursts, violence, self-hurt, cries for help, etc.

As it stands, only the affluent get this kind of "fair" treatment, or better The people of privilege who do drugs in this country, like the people in white collar professions, politicians, or simply the wealthy, get
off scott free. So not only is the system inefficient, it's partial.

However, some drugs do have a history of making people violent.

Another ambiguous statement. Sorry to give you the third degree, but you really need to be more specific. Every drug has a different socio-politico-economic profile.

Alcohol causes the most violence and property damage per capita. It's also addictive. Can you explain that one to me?

I have nothing but pity for addicts for because of their addiction they are not a free person. I've watched them destroy their health, lose their wealth, and create a living hell for their families and loved ones. Because of what I've observed personally no doubt has a role in why I am strongly against the legalization.

I don't understand the logical disconnect here. You admit all that, yet still favor punishment? How can you punish someone who is harming themselves? It's pretty much the opposite of what they need.

You acknowledge all that, yet won't acknowledge criminalizing them is just adding one more bain to their existence. There is no evidence that law-enforced recovery is lasting. If the addict doesn't choose their recovery then their success profile is low. They will have access to their drug of choice regardless if it's legal or not, because blackmarket saturation is high in many parts of North America.

So, to summarize:
1) We can't keep drugs out.
2) We can't keep people from doing them.
3) Law enforcement is not increasing long-term recovery rates.
4) Drug enforcement as it looks now is an economic drain, and causes many opportunity costs for those processed in the system.
5) It's not impartially enforced. People of privilege and affluence not only do the drugs, they are often the source of their entry into this country.
6) The drug economy exists in the billions of dollars as an underground system, controlled by gangs who are violent savages, resulting in even more social problems.

The list goes on.

Reagan tried. He had a pipe dream (no pun intended) about what drugs were doing to this country. IMO it was just another pet cause to shore up votes, but it was also a government power grab. He thought he could stop it, however well intended or deluded that was. But it didn't work.

What we need to do now is cut through the brainwashing of the past several decades, which is what cannabis law has started to do.

People who are in favor of drug laws really need to examine the HISTORY of the drug in question, and the government's role in oppressing it.
 
Last edited:
That is one of the most foolish arguments out there. It's like the people who imagine that the Mexican drug cartels will become law abiding citizens if recreational narcotics are legalized.

Such people are professional criminals first and foremost, and will always seek illicit activities.
So is that the game? Lose one argument, transform it into an entirely different argument?
I simply don't care what pot dealers might do once it is legalized.
The one thing they wont be doing is selling pot.

Then I recommend that you provide your progeny with a good example of mature thinking. Children can be of any age, I have found. It is terribly sad to find them in adult bodies.
As you play the "your a child, I'm more mature than you" game, do you not feel that you are a perfect example of the adult-child you just described?
Are you seriously saying that your passive aggressive little insults are "mature thinking"? Think again.

I have also been one in a major urban setting, as well as the Air Force. My experience is rather extensive. Embracing it is one of the several aspects of my nature that gives rise to a superior intellect, and the production of more valuable and valid insights.
And you say you don't do drugs?

And some of the most produictive people I've known and in the historical record have been profound alcoholics. Your point?
Finally something I can agree with. Even though alcohol is a hardcore and deadly substance, there are still people that have managed to be productive.
Marijuana simply helps a person relax after a hard days work and has little to no effect on their productiveness. Some use it to help do tedious tasks. Others use it to generate high levels of focus. And some simply use it to curb anxiety. In any event, there are people with extremely high and extremely low levels of productivity that smoke marijuana quite heavily. All walks of life.

You asked what "my" point is? My only point is to counter your initial point which was that frequent marijuana smokers are lazy drains on society.
A statement which was completely and utterly ridiculous.
 
My experience is rather extensive. Embracing it is one of the several aspects of my nature that gives rise to a superior intellect, and the production of more valuable and valid insights.


Don't forget to mention how humble and unpretentious you are, too.
LMFAO...Superior intellect...more valuable and valid insights...Too funny...
 
Are you referring to the states of Portugal?

In Lisbon you can possess any small amount of drug. You call it marijuana but its real name is cannabis -- cannabis is decriminalized in all the states. In the capital no one will do anything if you are smoking a joint in the streets. Of course, there is cultural politeness, so people will have discretion, but from a legal standpoint they can't be tossed in jail and have their lives ruined over it.



Any system that criminalizes small possession is not only completely inefficient, it is also ethically vile. In many U.S. states, small possession of opiates or heroin is a felony charge. That's just ridiculous.

The reason why it treats addicts like monsters is because it's addicts who are in the most risky position to get caught. They have medical need of the substance so will play russian roulette with the law more readily. Combined with this, the medical system stigmatizes addicts because simply admitting you are high to most medical personnel will get you the third degree. De-couple the law from the medicine, and harm reduction will increase greatly. Then there will be less outbursts, violence, self-hurt, cries for help, etc.

As it stands, only the affluent get this kind of "fair" treatment, or better The people of privilege who do drugs in this country, like the people in white collar professions, politicians, or simply the wealthy, get
off scott free. So not only is the system inefficient, it's partial.



Another ambiguous statement. Sorry to give you the third degree, but you really need to be more specific. Every drug has a different socio-politico-economic profile.

Alcohol causes the most violence and property damage per capita. It's also addictive. Can you explain that one to me?



I don't understand the logical disconnect here. You admit all that, yet still favor punishment? How can you punish someone who is harming themselves? It's pretty much the opposite of what they need.

You acknowledge all that, yet won't acknowledge criminalizing them is just adding one more bain to their existence. There is no evidence that law-enforced recovery is lasting. If the addict doesn't choose their recovery then their success profile is low. They will have access to their drug of choice regardless if it's legal or not, because blackmarket saturation is high in many parts of North America.

So, to summarize:
1) We can't keep drugs out.
2) We can't keep people from doing them.
3) Law enforcement is not increasing long-term recovery rates.
4) Drug enforcement as it looks now is an economic drain, and causes many opportunity costs for those processed in the system.
5) It's not impartially enforced. People of privilege and affluence not only do the drugs, they are often the source of their entry into this country.
6) The drug economy exists in the billions of dollars as an underground system, controlled by gangs who are violent savages, resulting in even more social problems.

The list goes on.

Reagan tried. He had a pipe dream (no pun intended) about what drugs were doing to this country. IMO it was just another pet cause to shore up votes, but it was also a government power grab. He thought he could stop it, however well intended or deluded that was. But it didn't work.

What we need to do now is cut through the brainwashing of the past several decades, which is what cannabis law has started to do.

People who are in favor of drug laws really need to examine the HISTORY of the drug in question, and the government's role in oppressing it.

It has been my experience that those who are willing to break one law will often break others because they have little regard for them. Some of the loudest voices in favor of decriminalizing marijuana to possession of the hard stuff, are more than willing to regulate the hell out of cigarettes (a legal substance) and treat smokers like second class citizens. Hypocrisy at its finest.

An article coming out of the UK just 5 short months ago shows their little experiment of going "soft" on cannabis has come with a price. I'll post the link but no doubt someone will find fault with the source or the content of the article because it does not agree with their views on the matter.
The price of going soft on cannabis: Labour's experiment 'pushed up hard drug use and crime' | Mail Online
 
Last edited:
An article coming out of the UK just 5 short months ago shows their little experiment of going "soft" on cannabis has come with a price. I'll post the link but no doubt someone will find fault with the source or the content of the article because it does not agree with their views on the matter.
The price of going soft on cannabis: Labour's experiment 'pushed up hard drug use and crime' | Mail Online

someone will find fault with the source or the content of the article because it does not agree with their views on the matter

Either that or, someone will point out the faults with the content and you'll ignore it because it does not agree with your view on the matter.

We evaluate the effects on crime of a localized policing experiment that decriminalized cannabis possession in the London borough of Lambeth between 2001 and 2002. We find that decriminalization led to a surge in drug related offences, and a collapse in arrest and clear-up rates for drug related crimes in Lambeth. These effects are quantitatively large and persist well after the policy experiment ends. However, the policy does allow the Lambeth police to reallocate their effort towards non-drug related crimes, leading to permanent reductions in nearly all other crime types. We also find the policy to have spillovers onto boroughs neighboring Lambeth. As drug consumers and suppliers relocate to Lambeth after decriminalization, drug crime rates significantly fall in neighbors to Lambeth. To understand the benefits of coordinating drugs policies across jurisdictions, we compare these results to the effects on crime of the nationwide decriminalization of cannabis in the UK from 2004 to 2009.

We find that nationwide decriminalization does not lead to a growth in drugs related crime, but does allow the police to reallocate effort towards non-drug related crime. We interpret the results through a Hotelling-style model that makes precise the behavioral response to decriminalization of the police, suppliers and demanders of drugs.

http://www.iza.org/conference_files/riskonomics2011/mcconnell_b6110.pdf

Just looking at Lambeth isn't a meaningful study to determine the effect of national decriminalization.
 
Actually Grendel, I am paying very close attention to those with opposing views from my own. I always find it very important to do so because how else would I be able to test my own beliefs? There are multiple articles from countries that are attempting to decriminalize drugs. Both sides of the issue are well documented. Weeding through them can be tedious because much of them are not based in facts but spin from special interest groups. And what I have concluded is with the lack of personal responsibility and common sense in our society as it stands today, it would be a major FAIL to decriminalize drugs.
Make it a great day.
 
Continuing a war on drugs is the stupidest possible thing to do.
There has to be a better way.

Legalize all of them, BUT, control .....
If we do not have the quality of people for this "control", then, just legalize marajuana..
State by state, we can learn from each other...if we cannot, then return to the police state of the 1600s....or the 1950s..
But, I feel that we do have the quality of people for at least legal marajuana....
And, for the record, I'd NOT touch any drug with a twenty foot pole !
My meds are bad enough...
 
In theory, I'm pro-legalization of everything.

In practice, living in the midst of an irresponsible society and being disgusted with the dishonesty and ignorance of the pro-legalization movement, I'm on the fence about supporting medical marijuana.
I think that the quality of people is higher than we know....Do not go by what this opinionated old man has to say.....
"Medical marajuana = "Medical alcohol" - equally foolish and stupid..
All of our law-makers must return to school...a GOOD school !
 
Back
Top Bottom